I must apologise for an even lighter-than-usual blogging rate recently.
It's been really difficult. My commute to and from work has been massively lengthened by the need to fight my way through the crowds of jubilant citizens celebrating the emphatic SNP victory in the election.
And once I get to work, we hardly get anything done. The water-cooler and coffee-machine chat is all about the electrifying effect the election result has had on the country, plus stuff like "Were you up for Kerr?" and so on.
I jest, of course. It hasn't been anything like that, and I bet it hasn't been like that for you either.
In fact the national reaction to this "momentous" result has mostly been "Meh", with good admixture of "Eh?" and no small amount of "Oops!" either.
As in 1997, the poor state of the losing side has resulted in a result beyond any expectation of the winners, or those who voted for them.
So now we have the Nats claiming a "mandate" for all sorts of things beyond running a devolved, subsidiary administration - which is in fact all that the electorate have given them.
Even more unhappily, we have the prospect of Blubberchops preening and blustering at us every week, with 67 clones of Sammy the Seal slapping their flippers together at his every utterance.
Never mind. Be of good cheer, in fact. Here are a few Reasons to be Cheerful:
1) The Telegraph's court case about the Nats' suppression of the awful financial truth behind their LIT proposal is due soon. They'll probably win. Ooops, Salmond and Swinney exposed as idiots and/or liars.
2) "Weasel" Russell thought he was being oh-so-clever by kicking the review of university funding into the post-election long grass. Ooops - that "whop whop" sound is a £300m boomerang heading directly for the centre of his forehead.
3) There are going to be Eruptions of the Bams. They are already marching up and down at NutNatScotland egging each other on about "powers of assumption" and "unilateral declarations" of this and that. This is bound to spread into the new intake of MSPs.
It's actually even better than that - the high-ups are already getting infected by the Bam virus as well. Witness Salmond himself going off on one over the Times report that Dominic Grieve had asked if he could take any action about the Herald's blowing of the Giggs superinjuction (when he clearly had not read the story), or the Supreme Court's intervention in the Nat Fraser case (handed down by a Scottish judge according to Scottish law). This is going to be entertaining.
4) It is going to become rapidly clear that this new Nat administration has no clue about what it is actually going to do. In terms of legislation, we have minimum alcohol pricing, anti-sectarianism and, er, that's about it. They've already said any resurrected LIT proposal won't be effective until 2016.
Oh, they're going to be "demanding" lots of extra stuff in the Scotland Act. But again, most of that isn't due to become effective until 2015-16 either. So even if Cameron says "yes", not much will happen for years. (And I suspect he won't be saying "yes", more like "Interesting - can you come back with detailed drafts for legislation, regulations, impact assessment and implementation plans. Meanwhile we'll put the Act on hold - can't waste Parliament's time, can we?")
We know they're going to be trying to con us all into a referendum "yes" vote. But, er, they've been doing that for 4 years already. We've had the CyberNat Chatroom, policy papers on this, that and the other, and at least two pre-referendum White Papers with two different versions of a referendum question. All of these documents have been total, mendacious, deceptive garbage, some of which I have deconstructed here. What new lies do they have to try on us?
But the referendum has to happen now - there is no way they can run away from it this time. So we are going to see the delicious spectacle of the Duke of Pork and his 10,000 men marching up to the top of the hill and then throwing themselves off a cliff, in the form of a referendum they are bound to lose.
Grab a snack and a drink, and enjoy the show.
37 comments:
"The Unstoppable Outpouring of Jubilation Following Our Glorious Day of National Awakening and Liberation"
That was my local on the Friday and Saturday night...
Newsnet goes down from the swamping of people looking for the truth about Scotland and the mythical mythbusting guru reinvigorates his spouting nonsense from its depths of despair.
Well you would say that, wouldn't you?
I was going to ask "why Xuthal of the Dusk" but of course I've just looked it up.
It's a bit shoddy.
Something like "John Carter, Gentleman of Virgina and Mars" would suit you much better.
It got you looking it up didn't it?
"Newsnet goes down from the swamping of people looking for the truth "
That's hilarious. They could only be swamped by people seeking a load of self-serving and mutually contradictory blog articles filed by the "editors" of NutNet at random under the various "news" headings they are pleased to use.
I've been posting occasionally there. To their credit, the mod team are very fair. It's just a pity that the Nat user community are blankly incapable of dealing with any fact-based challenge to their delusions.
"I've been posting occasionally there."
Lets have the truth as trolling would be a more accurate assessment as your pitiful responses have been exposed as fantasy myths allowing us to enjoy your puerile outpourings. But that is part of the growing up process which you could achieve in the future.
Nah Conan at his age he still keeps looking down and making wishes!
"your pitiful responses have been exposed as fantasy myths"
Most of my pitiful responses were questions which, strangely enough, no denizen of NutNet was willing to answer.
E.g. which part exactly of the 1689 Claim of Right refers to "popular sovereignty"?
Or yesterday's little amusement, when I asked for a list of signatories to the Vienna Convention. Strangely unforthcoming.
Illustrative of the way separatists are both unable to face facts, and intent on hiding them from others.
"Newsnet goes down from the swamping of people looking for the truth about Scotland..."
Sure it's not another MI5-inspired Denial of Service attack ;0)
Yes, another successful operation for my colleagues and I here at Thames House.
I love it when posters start having a go at each other..... wondeful reading!
"...intent on hiding them from others."
Who are these 'others'?
It's great to see you suffering like this SM753.
He must be suffering even more, since there is not a sign of newsnet anywhere.
I guess Wardog must be on holiday.
Well I suppose unlike the Murphy's you are bitter.
Well on claiming a mandate, Salmond did stand on "beefing up the Scotland bill" and did demand the devolution of the Crown Estate,Corporation Tax and an increase in the borrowing powers than presently proposed - so he he does have a right to campaign for them.
And then throw into the mix calls after the election the calls for partial devolution of broadcasting, devolution of excise duties and right to sit on EU Council of Ministers delegations.
All the above latter three do have the support of one or more of the opposition parties.
I am sure there is outrage about the EU thing. Probably from the diehards/last ditchers who have a thing about there being a Scottish "foreign policy" but have no problems with this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-11682623
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-guernsey-12289171
Despite without London them being very naughty boys!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-10722738
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-13563625
In league with Islamists. My!
But then I am sure there are rivers of dirty Tory money (provided by anti-devolutionists no doubt) in those islands and they are not in a hurry to bring the islands to heel.
Manxmen in Space!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-11201179
How does your pal Alan write such hardline unionist stuff whilst taking his money from these guys:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/guernsey/7781503.stm
Anyway to the court case row that is running at the mo.
Yes Lord Hope was on the panel - but he was one of five judges on the panel and whilst I guess he wrote the judgement, possibly in other cases that emerge he could be outvoted even with Lord (I promoted myself from Lord Advocate) Rodger on such a panel.
So there is a principal at stake here for all the whinging about "parochialism" from the usual suspects. TBH the best solution to this in my mind is for Scottish civil and ECHR criminal cases would be for the Surpeme Court to be "at Edinburgh" with Hope, Rodger and 1-whatever retired senior Scottish judges such as Cuddles Cullen hearing these cases when needed.
Honour would be sort of satisfied on both sides - sort of. It would serve justice and avoid the obstructions put in the path of trying to get justice at Strasbourg.
Remember that Scottish criminal law is very different from Englands. We have a different law of murder for a start - once the difference depending where you committed the act in the UK whether you hanged or not. Much of Scots criminal law is common whilst much of England's is statutory - due to Scottish neglect at Westminster and not wanting to burden the HMA.
But then a while back you seemed to suggest that English legal systems was superior to Scotland etc when you said that those accused of treason - wherever in the UK they committed it - should be transferred to English juridiction - the most notorious case being Rex v Casement whilst the accused was arrested in Ireland for offences in Ireland but ended up in the Old Bailey for some reason or other. And was prosecuted by one of your fellow Tories who had been rebelling against the government a few years previously as an official in the UVF.
Was Casement guilty - yes. Was it politic to hang him. That is another case entirely. Was FE "Galloper" Smith's involvement in the prosecution in the case distastful - no, it was absolutely disgusting.
But I digress. I suspect, your position is that if it comes from London then we should bow?
(By the way, is it a bit ironic of a Tory to complain about the SNP grumbling about an outside court making rulings when the Tories are littered with opponents of the ECHR and ECJ)
Seems that Salmond wants everything now. Gimme gimme gimme. It's all going to end in tears for them. Big majority which I suspect they did not want, preferring a minority government so they can blame the opposition for everything. Blaming Westminster all the time is not going to work. No overwhelming desire for independence. Cybernats are creaming themselves at the majority forgetting the realities of government. When things go wrong now, and they will, there is nowhere to hide.
I voted for them instead of the Lib Dems for obvious reasons, but I dont want independence, just a government that works properly.
Aberdonian
So which criminal law jurisdiction are the judges at the ECHR - which the SNP want direct access to - versed in?
Stuart
If there was a Scottish judge on the ECHR each nation would be equal, not a majority from one jurisdiction over the other.
Also the ECHR cannot strike down domestic court judgements.
As I mentioned, my belief is that the Supreme Court could have jurisdiction - as long as the panel was made up of Scottish judges or mainly Scottish judges.
So I will turn the argument on its head.
Lets say it was a panel of five judges assessing an English case on ECHR and they have the right to strike down the lower court's decision.
Two are English judges. Three are Cypriot.
And why not? Cypriot law is heavily based on the English system due to the legacy of British rule.
And the Cypriots vote one way and the English judges vote the other. Ok? England dances with joy at this result?
Then substitute the three Cypriots with three of the best French judges in the world - versed in the Code Napolean, they know it back to front and same with the ECHR.
French judges vote one way. The English judges vote the other.
No mention in England about being defeated by Boneparte in the courtroom and Wellers and Nelson spinning in their graves?
Then we substitute the French judges with Russians. But that is maybe going too far?
Remember the infamous 18th century judgement "If it be the law of England, why not the law of Scotland?"
Now substitute that with "If it be the law of France, why not the law of the UK?"
However I do believe that MacAskill is making a horlicks of his case with his hysterical chunterings and threats about cutting funding off. I think it should be left for Roseanna to deal with - after all she is a QC.
"I voted for them instead of the Lib Dems for obvious reasons"
I did too.
Now look at me.
Aberdonian
"If there was a Scottish judge on the ECHR each nation would be equal, not a majority from one jurisdiction over the other."
To that extent there are other jurisdictions that would need to be represented as well, for example regarding federal law in some European states? It might all get a bit unwieldy, taking your argument to its logical conclusion.
Scotland is not currently a state as regards ECHR representation - nor indeed vis-a-vis EU law and the ECJ, arguably of far greater import than the ECHR - and until a referendum's won that's unlikely to fundamentally change. And the SNP don't want a referendum at present, so shouldn't they just get on with the current settlement?
Anyway, mere representation on ECHR doesn't mean that Scotland's position would be any more enhanced - you could equally argue that Scots law is better represented in the Supreme Court - unless it's a mere Nationalist token that's being sought.
"Also the ECHR cannot strike down domestic court judgements."
Not formally, but if the court rules that a defendant had suffered a miscarriage of justice - in the year 2112, say, once the defendant has died and the point of law is of academic interest only - would Kenny MacAskill III just shrug his shoulders and say that the ECHR can't strike down domestic court adjudications?
If so then what's the point of wanting direct access to ECHR - delaying tactics?
As regards your hypothetical examples, doesn't that make the case for an independent Scottish system rather than ceding judicial sovereignty to Strasbourg, which to me underlines the basic Nationalist hypocrisy over all this.
But thanks for reminding me that Roseanna is a QC, which I'm sure I did know once upon a time.
But perhaps this is because I doubt if Republican Rose likes to highlight the fact she's a *Queen's* Counsel ;0)
Stuart
Concerning other "regions", there is no situation. Despite being federal in structure, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, Austria and Russia - they do not have separate criminal and civil codes. In other words the law in Germany is the same in Hamburg, Munich, Berlin or Bonn.
In Switzerland it is the same in Geneva, Berne and Zurich.
Etc
These countries are not like the US where there are different state laws along with the federal codes.
They are more like Canada where the criminal law which is federal but enforced by the provincial authorities through provincial court systems, prosecutors etc.
So actually the UK is in unique situation with no unified legal system or even court system - i.e. even in the USA the Supreme Court has ultimate say over all cases.
As I said earlier - I would be happy to see the Supreme Court hear cases - but with either an entire Scottish bench or a majority Scottish bench.
The ECHR does not strike down laws per se, but puts pressure on local authorities to change the law. They should. Noticed on Wikipedia about the ECHR putting pressure on the Cypriots to amend their legal code which outlawed homosexuality.
"As regards your hypothetical examples, doesn't that make the case for an independent Scottish system rather than ceding judicial sovereignty to Strasbourg, which to me underlines the basic Nationalist hypocrisy over all this."
The Council of Europe is a mini-UN. Nearly every European state (along with some countries many would not class at European) are bound by protocols of the Council's ECHR.
Even if there was no procedure from the Scottish courts per se, according to the rules of the ECHR you can go directly to the court to plead your case.
Remember the concerns are not just held by nationalists. I would hardly call Paul McBride, Alan Cochrane or Lord Fraser screaming nationalists.
Stuart
Concerning other "regions", there is no situation. Despite being federal in structure, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, Austria and Russia - they do not have separate criminal and civil codes. In other words the law in Germany is the same in Hamburg, Munich, Berlin or Bonn.
In Switzerland it is the same in Geneva, Berne and Zurich.
Etc
These countries are not like the US where there are different state laws along with the federal codes.
They are more like Canada where the criminal law which is federal but enforced by the provincial authorities through provincial court systems, prosecutors etc.
So actually the UK is in unique situation with no unified legal system or even court system - i.e. even in the USA the Supreme Court has ultimate say over all cases.
As I said earlier - I would be happy to see the Supreme Court hear cases - but with either an entire Scottish bench or a majority Scottish bench.
The ECHR does not strike down laws per se, but puts pressure on local authorities to change the law. They should. Noticed on Wikipedia about the ECHR putting pressure on the Cypriots to amend their legal code which outlawed homosexuality.
"As regards your hypothetical examples, doesn't that make the case for an independent Scottish system rather than ceding judicial sovereignty to Strasbourg, which to me underlines the basic Nationalist hypocrisy over all this."
The Council of Europe is a mini-UN. Nearly every European state (along with some countries many would not class at European) are bound by protocols of the Council's ECHR.
Even if there was no procedure from the Scottish courts per se, according to the rules of the ECHR you can go directly to the court to plead your case.
Remember the concerns are not just held by nationalists. I would hardly call Paul McBride, Alan Cochrane or Lord Fraser screaming nationalists.
Aberdonian
I bow to your superior knowledge regarding your comparison between the competing UK jurisdictions and those pertaining in federal continental countries, but I suspect you're perhaps exaggerating the position slightly, however I concede that UK law is more disparate than that in federal Germany, say. ;0)
However, you convey the impression that even you would prefer a domestic solution to ECHR.
And you seem to be at least partially agreeing with my point regarding the substantive effect of ECHR judgements - it's surely not of pivotal importance whether or not they can strike down the decisions of domestic courts.
Indeed, are you arguing that its inability to do so is a weakness?
Alex Salmond was using that argument in favour of the ECHR, insofar as it couldn't 'open cell doors' a la the Supreme Court.
And I think the Council of Europe is more than a mini-UN if its treaties and jurisprudence have such a direct effect on our own justice system,thus underlinining the paradoxical quality of the SNP's 'independence in Europe'.
I mean, it's self-evident that the ECHR would have thrown the book at us if the Fraser or Cadder cases had actually reached there, so what precisely is the SNP gripe?
And I would certainly agree that the system is far from perfect, but nothing is, and the SNP seem to be arguing in favour of rejecting the Supreme Court frying pan in favour of the ECHR fire.
i see newsnet is down yet again. perhaps the cia are involved this time!
No, it was my colleagues here in Thames House again.
Aberdonian
I don't recall saying the English legal system was superior. I do think that if we woke up tomorrow and the "distinctive" Scottish legal system had somehow been magicked away, nobody would really notice the difference.
You've made some sensible suggestions for adjusting and possibly improving the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.
But I hope you agree that the threats of Calamity MacAskill to stop funding it because it does things he disagrees with are utterly despicable.
The logical conclusion is that if he was funding it 100%, he would close it down. That's nasty.
The thing is that KM has screwed up. AM is playing the big man fighting the westminster neds (eton rifles comes to mind really). KM decides to jump in and is about to get a kicking.
KM has now opened the SNP to accusations of trying to stop justice for political reasons, the very thing they said they would not stoop to when they released the lockerbie bomber.
politicians are all the same bunch of scheming power hungy hypocritical gits who really do not care a toss for us.
Maybe I exaggerated a bit about you saying that English law was superior to Scots. I thinking about the debate we had in 2009 about juridictional soveriegnty which you said of spies caught in Scotland in World Wat II and the Casement case:
"I think a temporary and technical over-ride of Article XIX in the case of treason in wartime is still in keeping with the spirit of the thing."
Concerning MacAskill, yes frankly for a minister and lawyer his remarks were disgraceful. He is lucky that this did not happen this time last year otherwise he would have faced a motion of confidence which he would have lost or Salmond would have had to have sacked him before hand. If he continues like this then he needs to be put out to grass and probably Roseanna replacing him.
Concerning the continued existence of the separate legal system - most people on a day to day basis would not miss it. However it is those little things - like buying/sellling a house and not having to worry about being gazumped---------
Ultra Unionist.
Suits you sir.
Clearly, having read your blog, you'll be quite upset after the coming referendum.
Vote YES
You'll feel better.
The title of this blog sounds like it was actually a Brit nat night of triumph.
It wasn't.
It was a Scot nat triumph.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13822916
My god man, had you had your way, this would be Scotland.
Silly bar steward
They have to be stopped, by any means necessary, and they will be
Muttley
If you're going to haunt my comments pages, at least do it under one moniker.
Glad the one about "any means necessary" got to you - it was meant to.
Bugger, now I've done it, I've allowed my ill conceived, downright wrong headed nature to ge the better of me and now the media are onto 'ultra unionism' like a rash.
I suspect this blog will come for soem attention. Is it acceptable to compare the first minister to fascist dictators, the SNP to neo-fascists and as Alan Cochrane has recently done comparing Alec Slamond to Dr Jerkyll.
People are watching this very closely, we are about to see extremist unionist kiboshed.
They have to be stopped, by any means necessary, and they will be.
Post a Comment